People v. Evans
80 N.E.3d 736
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Defendant Keywani Evans was charged with unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon and aggravated unlawful use of a weapon after officers pursued a man (identified by Officer Bialata as Evans) who ran from them; a white track jacket left on a fence contained a .32-caliber handgun and a wallet with an ID bearing Evans’s name.
- The State presented officer testimony identifying Evans as the man who fled and describing recovery of the jacket, gun, and wallet; the State also entered Evans’s prior felony conviction and lack of FOID card.
- Evans testified he was elsewhere, denied ownership of the jacket and gun, but later admitted the wallet/ID were his and said he had lost the wallet earlier and obtained a new ID before the incident.
- After the defense rested, the court asked the State to produce the wallet (which had not been introduced in the State’s case-in-chief); the State obtained the wallet and the court reopened the record for rebuttal testimony by Officer Bialata identifying the wallet and ID.
- Evans moved to strike the rebuttal testimony and later argued in a posttrial motion that the court improperly prompted the State to produce prejudicial rebuttal evidence; the trial court denied relief, convicted Evans after a bench trial, and sentenced him to four years.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abandoned its neutral role by asking the State to produce the wallet after the State rested | The court’s request was permissible fact-finding assistance; it did not make the State’s case or assume advocacy | Asking the State to produce evidence after close effectively acted as prosecutor and prejudiced Evans | The court did not err; requesting the wallet was within discretion and did not convert the judge into an advocate |
| Whether reopening to admit the wallet was reversible under Kuntz precedent | The wallet merely corroborated testimony already sufficient to prove possession | The continuance and reopening were identical to Kuntz and thus improper | Distinguished Kuntz: here wallet was cumulative, not essential to the State’s case, so reopening was not prejudicial |
| Whether forfeiture or plain error bars review of the claim | State: Evans failed to object timely and contemporaneously, so issue is forfeited | Evans: Sprinkle/Heider exceptions apply because claim involves judge’s conduct; or plain error review should apply | Court found forfeiture debate unnecessary because no error occurred on merits |
| Whether the rebuttal evidence improperly prejudiced defendant in a bench trial | State: bench trial reduces prejudice risk; judge may aid in developing the record | Evans: court’s conduct improperly aided prosecution and affected fairness | Held that in a bench trial the court’s action was acceptable; the judge’s factfinding role and discretion allowed the request |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Kuntz, 239 Ill. App. 3d 587 (Ill. App. Ct. 1993) (trial court impermissibly acted as advocate by prompting State to reopen and present essential evidence)
- People v. Robinson, 236 Ill. App. 3d 313 (Ill. App. Ct. 1992) (suggesting the State present evidence is not assuming prosecutor role)
- People v. Sprinkle, 27 Ill. 2d 398 (Ill. 1963) (Sprinkle doctrine: forfeiture rule relaxed where objection concerns judge’s conduct)
- People v. McLaurin, 235 Ill. 2d 478 (Ill. 2009) (Sprinkle exception should be applied only in extraordinary circumstances)
- People v. Heider, 231 Ill. 2d 1 (Ill. 2008) (appellate review may consider the same essential claim raised at trial)